| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Interestingly, social movements in the city have advocated for rights by productively using civic space, mobilizing the popular masses, and constructing collective identities. First, these movements often used public spaces such as streets, parks, and stadia for their campaigns of dissent. They became movers and shakers of these spaces, reinventing them from sites of leisure and mobility into sites of resistance. Secondly, they have mobilized participants and supporters through various techniques such as distributing flyers and posters, soliciting for foreign alliances, and using social media and online technology. Also, these Lagos-based groups, in organizing their social action, often devised creative ways of collectively identifying themselves, including as ethnopolitical, human rights, or pro-democracy movements.
The State: | |
<
< | Successive Nigerian governments have responded to the campaigns of such movements in Lagos through several approaches that we can sum up into two: repression and concession. State repression of grassroots activists has been a relatively constant occurrence in Nigeria’s history, despite changes in the country’s political structure. Whether under a colonial, military, or even a democratically elected government, activists in Lagos have been subject to abuse, harassment, and violence by elements of the state. While there have been differences in the methods of state repression in Lagos, some similarities have lingered on. For one, numerous governments have used force and extrajudicial means to curb dissent in the city. These governments have promoted repressive policies, arbitrarily detained activists, and suspended or ignored constitutional rules. In 1984, for instance, the military junta of General Muhammadu Buhari issued the ‘public officers protection against false accusation’ decree which became a justification to oppress human rights activists and opponents of the regime. Incidentally, during Buhari’s tenure as Nigeria’s immediate past president (2011-2023), critics accused his administration of pursuing a similar agenda. For instance, many criticized Buhari’s measures to allegedly silence dissenting voices including initiating a ‘hate speech’ campaign and supporting a proposed ‘hate speech’ bill that, if it had been passed into law, would have carried the death penalty. | >
> | Successive Nigerian governments have responded to the campaigns of such movements in Lagos through several approaches that we can sum up into two: repression and concession. State repression of grassroots activists has been a relatively constant occurrence in Nigeria’s history, despite changes in the country’s political structure. Whether under a colonial, military, or even a democratically elected government, activists in Lagos have been subject to abuse, harassment, and violence by elements of the state. While there have been differences in the methods of state repression in Lagos, some similarities have lingered on. For one, numerous governments have used force and extrajudicial means to curb dissent in the city. These governments have promoted repressive policies, arbitrarily detained activists, and suspended or ignored constitutional rules. In 1984, for instance, the military junta of General Muhammadu Buhari issued the ‘public officers protection against false accusation’ decree which became a justification to oppress human rights activists and opponents of the regime. Incidentally, during Buhari’s tenure as Nigeria’s immediate past president (2011-2023), critics accused his administration of pursuing a similar agenda. For instance, many criticized Buhari’s measures to allegedly silence dissenting voices including initiating a ‘hate speech’ campaign and supporting a proposed ‘hate speech’ bill that, if it had been passed into law, would have carried the death penalty.https://www.thecable.ng/a-tale-of-anachronism-the-proposed-hate-speech-bill | | | Nevertheless, Nigerian governments have occasionally explored avenues of uncoerced cooperation as opposed to stifling grassroots activism in Lagos. Even authoritarian governments have shown that they too can make strategic compromises, albeit for ostensibly self-serving reasons. To illustrate, it was somewhat paradoxical that the military regime of General Abacha, infamous for allegedly committing the most human rights violations in Nigeria’s history, established a national human rights commission in 1995. Although many believed that the commission was ineffective, this remains a classic example of the regime conceding to the pressure of activists, while looking to gain some legitimacy for itself. |
|